/m/mets

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

If you're going to make a sequel to Sharknado, aren't you obliged to give more of a name than Sharknado 2? I mean, Sharknado 2: Shark Harder or Sharknado 2: Electric Boogaloo work as names without even trying to be clever.

I do not see the attraction of Sharknado or its ilk. I can get the enjoyment of the title without wasting my time seeing a bad movie. But then again I hear I am a Whig, so there is that.

I think good fun camp has to happen almost accidentally -- or at least, more slyly -- to be good, fun camp.

When you make a film like 'Sharknado' -- you're intently, from the very beginning setting out to create artificial camp.

I compare this to the Evil Dead trilogy...

ED I was a genuine splatterfest horrorfilm with a sly bit of fun to it... Raimi and Campbell kind of knew what they had and went a bit further with ED II.... And then Army of Darkness was the full-on realization of it.

That's good, fun organic camp.

A bunch of studio execs - even from a low-tier, made-for-TV studio basically sitting around spitballing ideas that don't rise above the level of drunken stoner ideas, then starting their wholly-camp based marketing push, then finding a washed up actress to add to the buzz, then selling it gleefully to network execs who see the same viral buzz that was the very foundation to start with isn't real camp.

Good camp is like satire -- if you have to actually TELL people it's a really good bucketful of camp, it's actually not very good... just like if you find yourself explaining your satirical take, go back to the drawing board and try again because you missed the mark. But hey - here - I doubt they care... they set up to do a ridiculous piece that faux-hipsters would breathlessly write about, juicing the eyeballs, etc. It worked.

Some of it does fall into the "so bad its good" genre, much of it sucks.

It's hard to describe how bad Tara Reid was though, she appeared stoned/wasted much of her scenes- in many she was kind of standing around with the other actors, but not really interacting with the nor delivering any lines- the impression I got was either she had forgotten her lines or was incapable of delivering any, but they wheeled her out in front of the camera anyway.

There is one scene where, I swear, she's 1 of 4 characters outside discussing the approaching tornado, only she's not delivering any lines, but the other 3 are around her talking to each other, and she starts to slowly wander off from the group, but they follow her while delivering their lines to each other, at the very end the 3 people actually acting are facing each other while talking to each other- and the guy playing her character's husband kind of reaches out and grabs her arm to keep her from wandering off camera...

I half expected to see her character start wandering around with a hood hiding her face (like the guy who "replaced" Bela Lugosi in Plan 9)

A bunch of studio execs - even from a low-tier, made-for-TV studio basically sitting around spitballing ideas that don't rise above the level of drunken stoner ideas, then starting their wholly-camp based marketing push, then finding a washed up actress to add to the buzz, then selling it gleefully to network execs who see the same viral buzz that was the very foundation to start with isn't real camp.

I do not see the attraction of Sharknado or its ilk. I can get the enjoyment of the title without wasting my time seeing a bad movie. But then again I hear I am a Whig, so there is that.

I'm a fan of bad movies, as you can often find something good in them. But here you have an intentionally bad movie, where nobody took the craft seriously, and I'm not sure there is going to be good in it anywhere.

I think good fun camp has to happen almost accidentally -- or at least, more slyly -- to be good, fun camp.

When you make a film like 'Sharknado' -- you're intently, from the very beginning setting out to create artificial camp.

I compare this to the Evil Dead trilogy...

ED I was a genuine splatterfest horrorfilm with a sly bit of fun to it... Raimi and Campbell kind of knew what they had and went a bit further with ED II.... And then Army of Darkness was the full-on realization of it.

That's good, fun organic camp.

And the people making those movies still cared about their product. Even Snakes on a Plane, the people cared about the product, but kept the working title because it generated buzz. A movie like this, I don't think that there is anyone caring here. I've seen a lot of bad movies, that the producer had to know it was bad when they released it, but you can usually find something redeeming about them (this applies to most of the sci-fi /syfy movies) Sharknado falls into the category of "Ben Stiller's new movie" for me...something I'm not going to be remotely interested in seeing.

Android Cop
Atlantic Rim
Snakes on a Train
Transmorphers
The Day the Earth Stopped

I haven't seen those, but there was one called Robotropolis that had some redeeming characteristics. One thing about the syfy films(and their ilk) they don't let a lack of budget or talented special effects team prevent them from showing what little special effects they have. (there was a dragon movie which looped a group of dragons flying, but at least they showed the dragons...too often the medium budget movies don't want to show their effects, trying to ape Jaws in keeping them hidden.)

Back in our single days (probably about the same time I found this site, so like early 2000s) my buddies and I used to watch cheesy horror movies and review them on our now defunct website. This was of course a different time. We were kind of inspired by going to the video store and seeing movies like "Miner's Massacre" on the shelf and wondering who in the hell actually watched that stuff. Turns out, we ended up watching lots and lots of those videos during our run.

The vast, vast, vast majority of the movies we watched were just awful. Just terrible pieces of garbage. It was fun though when we found a diamond in the rough. One thing we did learn was that there was no steadfast formula for the "good" movies.

* since this is a baseball site, one of the better movies we watched was called "The Greenskeeper". Jon Rocker had a minor role in the flick.

Legitimately terrible movies sometimes have something you've never seen before. Sure, that's because the filmmaker didn't know what they were doing, but I find it legitimately exciting to watch a Miami Connection and see a movie that doesn't follow the normal rules. It's like Outsider Art; the lack of polish can lead to an interesting experience.

However, movies like Sharknado are all bad in exactly the same way, which makes them less fun.

So, putting all the BBTF threads together, the Mets have invested heavily in Sharknado 2 in a desperate attempt to recoup their Madoff-scale losses on their Bitcoin investments and repay their high interest loans from the Dominican Mafia? Sounds kinda dicey.